Czuch:

> as bad as you claim Bush was and how different you would be,
> you turned out worse, simply because you said you were better

You got to the point I was trying to make. When G. W. Bush was president a lot of us were on his case. He did many things that many people considered down right terrible and that is why both inside and outside of the US his image suffered.

Barack Obama comes in, preaching change. That might sound great at election time, but the political system in set up in such a way that it has become nearly impossible for any president to effect meaningful change.

Now the Republicans get their turn at taking pot shots at the president. Come election time the Republicans will also preach change. Will they be able to deliver? Probably not, because the legislative process in congress and the senate is set up so that the status quo will stay there. Politicians represent their own interests first, then the interests of those who paid for their election, and then, if there is a chance, the interests of those people who voted for them.

Sarah Palin will be nothing like Bush. That is true, but only to the extent that the limits of power on the president will allow. That means "big business and the current distribution of wealth must operate as usual".

As all previous presidents in history, the president will do some good things, a lot of bad things, and his/her popularity will start out great and drop as people become disillusioned with their inability to change anything.

Here in Canada it is not any better. I have not seen this country get much better in the last 20 years. We went through free trade agreements, a huge recession in 90/91, then a slow climb out of it in the 90s, then we had an oil boom from 2003 to 2007, only to be followed by the current recession and all the bailouts for banks, car makers, etc.

In all of this, we had both Liberals (Democrats in the US) and Conservatives (Republicans in the US) promising change and improvement. The system is such that nothing got better or changed in 25 years.

We might have techno gadgets (computers, cell phones, etc.) but when we look at the overall picture of the world, did anything change since the end of the Cold War? We replaced an enemy for another. Communists gave way to terrorists. Poor people are still poor. Rich people are still getting richer. Can a president (or any president, prime minister, etc.) effect meaninful change?

As a final thought I will say that I might joke about Sarah Palin, or the First Gentleman, etc. but it would be a mistake to underestimate her abilities, just as it is a mistake to underestimate President Obama.

Czuch: i like that

Snoopy: Obama knows that Bush is to blame.... not only for the poorly executed relief efforts, but for the earth quake itself, and for the fact that Bush did not send Haiti money to make their environment more earth quake resistant in the first place!

Did you see on the news..... some of the Massachusetts democrats, they were going to vote democrat until the Kennedys put their noses into things, and they were like "Im not letting them tell me how to vote" , and ended up voting republican instead!


Even Obama tried, even the great persuader could not get it done

1 frickin year, thats all, you couldnt even keep your promises for 1 frickin year

Now the 75% of us uninformed hicks are gonna show you smug SOBs the way to the exits

Übergeek 바둑이: These posts are examples of why you liberals cant hold on to your power.... you are all sooo progressive, and soooo intelligent, and you know what is the best for this country, even though you are about 25% of the population, its just that the rest of us are just poorly educated and uninformed hicks.... and you and Pelosi know whats best, and you will tell us that you are more tolerant and more inclusive and more blah blah blah, but the reality is that you are only more inclusive and more tolerant etc when someone agrees with you or they simply deffer to your superior agenda.....

You know health reform is right, so it doesnt matter that you promised to be more bi partisan, that you promised to have a more open and honest process, no, those promises dont matter because you have self righteousness on your side, you have been given a mandate to cram this down our throat, quick before we lose our super majority, quick before anyone actually has time to digest and understand the true ramifications,... you all make me sick really!


The problem with being so smug and contrite is that you got your power based on telling people how different from that you were going to be, and as bad as you claim Bush was and how different you would be, you turned out worse, simply because you said you were better, no, you promised to be better, and that is a lie that will haunt you for a very long time to come!

What you should have said is that you know what is best and to give us a blank check and we will make everything all right, like the wizard of oz, just leave us alone behind the big progressive curtain, and we will make everything all right, we promise!

If she were to win, Todd Palin would become the First Gentleman. I think that is the proper term. The question is, would he feel at home in pictures like this photo of a club made of 36 first ladies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Ladies_2008.jpg

There are a few countries with female heads of state. I imagine that he could form a First Gentlemen's club with guys like Joachim Sauer (First Gentleman of Germany), Pentti Arajarvi (First Gentleman of Finland), Martin MacAleese (First Gentleman of Ireland), and Jose Miguel Arroyo (First Gentleman of the Philippines).

If Dalia Grybauskaite (Madame President of Lithuania) gets married then there might be another bloke joining the club. Oleksandr Tymoshenko is kind of the First Gentleman of the Ukraine but he doesn't like appearing in public and he might refuse to join the club.

With five or six blokes in the club they might have poker nights. I can see them betting a few million here and there over a hand of Texas Hold'em.

More seriously, if Sarah Palin is elected and they decide to drill baby drill in Alaska's Artic National Wildlife Refuge, will they rename it to Alaska's Arctic National Oilfield Refuge? I would rename it Arctic Arabia.

Übergeek 바둑이: a little sarcasm? lol

Now that the Democrats lost a senate seat in Virginia, we can see a trend for the upcoming senate and congress elections. The Republicans will sweep both houses and the Obama administration will be paralized. Then in 3 years Sarah Palin will become president.

Once the Republicans take over the government, the US will really, really experience massive changes for the better, just like it did under G.W. Bush. I foresee a golden age of change and renewal.

Artful Dodger: so whats the point of "left" or "right"? why not just vote for people who are in touch with their constituants?

Artful Dodger: when it comes right down to it...most repubs are no better, maybe even worse, when it comes to corruption and lobbyest loyalty

Bernice: Now the dems have lost their super majority... and a democrat state like Massachusetts has voted a republican senator to replace Kennedy????


Hey AD, quit acting like a prom girl, and get in her and respond to this......

Czuch: well I guess that is a good point LOL

Bernice: lol... I wouldnt call it a complete disaster.... he and cronies like him have awoken the average person against their so called "progressive" agenda

just saw on TV what a disastrous year Obama has had LOL

Artful Dodger: new glasses?
the politicians do it for votes...same as they spend billions of dollars every year provideing unwed/divorced mothers with state aid,medical support, and free legal council. not only do they do this, they write new laws to make it very hard to comply with state requests.
why not equal representation?
if a terrorist who attempts to kill can be afforded equal representation, why not hard working tax paying americans?

Artful Dodger: was going to ask you before if that was the wrong board for your post when i saw it on the tournament one

Snoopy:

Snoopy: ROFL

Czuch: they got it all wrong and are very bias

Übergeek 바둑이: Canada # 9?

I guess we find a way to muddle through even with thousands dying in the streets waiting to see a doctor

Czuch: well who would have thought Australia would have been number 2?
Somebody sure knows how to BS about things don't they?

Czuch:

All I can say that the list is published by "International Living Magazine". It seems like a reputable publication. I guess the average peasant in the mountains of Uruguay has a better life than the average citizen of the UK!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240988/France-tops-list-best-places-live-world-fifth-year-row--Britain-languishes-25th.html


Looks like you have more problems than you care to admit!

You can go on and on about our supposed infant mortality ranking as some sign about the US over all, but seems you need to take a look in the mirror before throwing more stones

in this town there be uproar
why shouldnt the British people be allowed to stand on the street and welcome our fallen hero's home

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8437658.stm

Übergeek 바둑이: If it fails, it will be because the Republican party cares more about protecting the business of private insurers than about the lack of adequate care for the poor.


I disagree.... I think it will be because republicans care more about doing something right than what the democrats are willing to do. I live in a state with a couple of the more liberal republicans, who side with democrats way more than I would prefer, and they have never been ones to tote a party line just for that sake, yet they have not been able to back this latest health care plan.


Doesnt it bother you at all that Obama won the election basically because he called for a change in the way politics were run, and more bipartisanship, and openness and all that happy horse crap? This health care law would not take effect for 4 years, whats the rush to pass it like this anyway?

Übergeek 바둑이: lack of adequate care for the poor. Well, the US is the only modern industrialized country without universally available health care.


I am not sure you stated your point the way you meant to?

We already do have universally available health care.... even non citizens can walk into any emergency room and never be turned away services because they dont have the ability to pay for it.

as for the poor having adequate care.... I think if you are very poor you have a better chance to get you health care paid for you than any other income groups.

Übergeek 바둑이: I will go tell all the families who have no dead people, I am sure they will agree with me too!

You can never win this debate, since there is no way for you to prove that the losses would not have been greater had we left the status quo

I know you are smarter than that argument, really? You can always ask the family of a dead person, and they will not agree they like their son dead..... and I can agree on one point, that it is a lot easier to say a cost was worth it, when it isnt your familys life that was part of the cost.

But my point is still valid, we could have spent untold money and time keeping Saddam fenced in, and who knows, still end up having to take him out, and maybe it would cost a lot more if done down the road... maybe saying we got off cheap is wrong, but saying that we got off "cheaper" this way than any other way, how can you say I am wrong?

Czuch:

> BTW, you must be against our recent health care bill?

I think that while the Obama administrations intentions are good, the health care bill will probably fail. If it fails, it will be because the Republican party cares more about protecting the business of private insurers than about the lack of adequate care for the poor. Well, the US is the only modern industrialized country without universally available health care. I think it bothers Democrats that the US is behind the trend in other industrialized countries.

The next 10 years will prove whether private insurers can keep up with rising healthcare costs. As the Baby Boomer generation ages, the pressure on private insurers will increase to the point that some of them will go bankrupt. It is at that point that state-run healthcare will probably come to the forefront, as a bailout for a failing private system. I expect a full bailout, as it happened with the banks last year.

I doubt Obama's healthcare bill will succeed, but his successor in 7 years will be forced to do something about it.

Czuch:

> My guess is thsat we got off cheap!

You go and tell it to the families and all those dead people. I am sure they will agree with you.

Übergeek 바둑이: ...and the CBO knows what the total cost would have been keeping him "fenced in" for who knows how many years, and then his sons, and then who knows, maybe some many years down the road, we end up having to go after him anyways, what is that total cost in lives and money?????

My guess is thsat we got off cheap!

BTW, you must be against our recent health care bill? Its funny I dont hear the media or liberals calling Obama a liar over this one, even though the CBO(yes the same trusted CBO that you just quoted) has said that their liberals' numbers are simply lies!

Czuch:

> I still believe that taking him out was worth the cost

What was the cost? 150,000 civilians killed by violent death; another 500,000 killed as a result of destroyed hospitals, water treatment facilities and other infrastructure; 4,568 non-American coalition forces soldiers; and 4,345 American soldiers.

Here are some nice quotes:

"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017."

"As the total passed US$450 billion in 2007, the cost for the Iraq war reached approximately $1500 per person in the United States. If the Iraq war were to wind up costing 1.9 trillion dollars, the cost would be over 4.2 times higher ($6,300 per United States citizen.) This would put the expense at $25,000 for an average family of four, or $32,000 per family if Afghanistan is included."

Getting rid of Saddam was worth every dollar spent, and every human life lost. Now we can recover the cost in oil, and let Haliburton, Exxon and Chevron keep the profits.

I guess Americans can happily accept spending 32K per family of four, just to let oil companies reap the profits from the war. Now, where are the WMDs? Who is responsible and who pays for manufacturing false intelligence?

(V): What amount of endless resources were used to "fence" Saddam in? I still believe that taking him out was worth the cost, and that the cost to fence him in would have ended up greater in the long run

Bernice:

Starsky: hey , did Santa bring you what you wanted? LOL

Did someone say Gravy? LOL

GTCharlie: it will if the funding to the terrorists can be cut.

Czuch: The only distraction I can see Saddam causing is if Iran invaded, the rest.. Well, embarrassment over him being an ex lackey of the USA and Tony Blair hating him.

How many people died since he was basically fenced in v his regime being taken down, and how much in resources have been diverted from eradicating Al-Qaeda? As to two different fights... he wasn't one, he was an easy victory and pointless one... and from history we have many examples of the problems of fighting on two different fronts.

As to them being let go... I at the moment do not understand what happened. They were in nick, and somehow they were released. I don't see the US authorities being unaware of this.

I guess more info will come out over the next week, etc.

of course, I don't see this ending in the next 20 years

Czuch: sounds like some UAV predators or reapers are needed in Yemen

(V): so what? Two different fights, Saddam caused us more of a distraction alive than taking him down ever did.

And the point is, that once you have them captured, letting them go makes zero sense.

Czuch: If that is so true... why the waste of money and resources on Iraq that could have gone on fighting and destroying the terrorist network worldwide??

The billions spent on a war that was not necessary and now the real war on terrorism is suffering. Saddam was not a terrorist or had any links to Al-Qaeda.

(V): Only 2???? Thats 2 too many

rod03801: I heard on the news and read via several on-line newspapers that the Yemen authorities have been after help in dealing with possible terrorist cells, but such calls for help have been ignored. Yemen's Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi has said that the country is not getting sufficient help from the West to tackle al-Qaeda. They have their own troubles dealing with warring factions and need support from the USA, UK and EU.

That of those who are possibly active in Yemen, two were from the bay, yet an estimated 200-300 terrorists are active in the country. No mention they were leaders, just active members of the group.

wouldnt it be a clever thing for them to do? blow up an aeroplane, thereby killing many people from DIFFERENT countries....not just america? Upsetting a wider range of peoples?

Artful Dodger: Yes, and "terrorism" is too inflammatory. The term is now "man-caused disaster".

I heard on the news tonight, that the leaders/organizers of Al Queida groups in Yemen are some Guantanamo Bay terrorists who were released to Saudi Arabia and "rehabilitated" and are now back to the same thing. Let's keep releasing these people!! Yeah! Makes a lot of sense.

Artful Dodger: The guy from huffington got it wrong and changed his blog.. Is your point from that still valid?

And if it is the CIA.. then that speaks of a systematic government within government that has done it's best to make USA citizens frightened and care more about power then your country.... get rid of the CIA then.

I'm sure lots of people going by the CIA's past won't miss them... like the Russians do not miss the KGB!!

Artful Dodger: Dont you get it yet???? Neither Bush nor Obama had to react, because they both were the ones to orchestrate the attacks themselves!

Czuch: well if you wait long enough Jules will have the TRUE story for you.....he gets all the facts first hand remember LOL